Linda and the RRHOF article

[musicaamator]

Found this article detailing why Linda should be nominated, etc. I know the arguments have been discussed here about her caring about this or not but I would be stoked if Linda did get this much deserved induction.

Yes, the point can be made that perhaps the fans would be more happy than her if she did get this honour, but I don't think Linda would do a Johnny Rotten/Axl Rose and not show up (although that would be very rock n' roll for her to do). Her track record speaks for itself.

Again, just wishing Linda would be given the respect she so rightly deserves.

theculturedhippie.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/linda-ronstadt-not-in-the-rock-n-roll-hall-of-fame-now-thats-a-serious-wtf/

[erik]

I already put my two cents in there.

In a recent radio interview, Linda's former manager Peter Asher said that Linda doesn't mind not being there, which is not the same as not caring. I don't think she'd turn down such an induction because, while she isn't anywhere near as full of herself as some of the others who have been inducted, she also seems to be coming to terms with that particular period of her life too.

God knows she deserves such an induction. As I've pointed out, besides just the straight rock and roll, Linda has essayed every single style that gave birth to rock and roll in the first place: jazz; gospel; blues; R&B; folk; and country. I cannot think of anybody currently in there who has ever done that, with the possible exception of that Presley guy (LOL).

[Robert Morse]

I have mixed feelings about this - not about Linda's right to be included in this type of organization - but in the need for a RRHOF in the first place.

All you have to do is look at the Tumbling Dice video above to know Linda is a first rate rock singer. In my opinion no one can sing rock like she can. And the article is correct - Donna Summer but not Linda Ronstadt? (and I think Donna is a fine singer). Or any other female rock sionger but not Linda?

As far as the RRHOF - I guess I am not convinced of its value. Really - why does it need to exist as all? What I do know is that since there is one - Linda deserves to be included. My guess is she could care less - but if something calling itself the RRHOF is to have any integrity at all it needs to include Linda Ronstadt.

[sliderocker]

The critics can't make the argument that Linda is disqualified because she wasn't a writer and most of her hits were covers. Elvis wasn't a writer but he's in there. Rick Nelson wrote but the majority of his hits were written by others. Likewise, Aretha Franklin is a writer but a lot of her hits were written by others. In fact, with regrads to Aretha, I was listening to a repeat of Casey Kasem's America Top 40 show from 1971 a short time back and one of her hits was being played from that time. Kasem announced it was her 18th cover hit, so she covered a lot of other artist's tunes too. No problem in that disqualifying her from admission. Most of the women who are in the joke that is the R&RHoF are not rock singers in the strictest sense of the word - if one is going to be honest about it. Joni Mitchell was more of a folkie than a rock and roller. Madonna's rock and roll? On what planet? Donna Summer, God bless her departed soul, wasn't rock and roll either.

But, even of the ones who are, one has to question their credentials. Patti Smith was more of a favorite with the critics than with the public, all because she cowrote "Because the Night" with the critics's darling, Bruce Springsteen. One criteria the hall has is that the artist has to have influenced some other artist, but to be honest, I can't think of one other artist Patti Smith has influenced. What else did she do beyond "Because the Night?"

The fact is, Linda was and is the most successful female rock singer, ever. She probably has influenced more female rock performers than many have given her credit for doing. It's a shame that practically all of the acknowledgement that has come her way as far as being an influence has come from female country singers. But, as far as acknowledgements go, one has to wonder if she has any male rockers out there who were influenced by her but have never acknowledged her publicly as having been an influence? That might make some difference if some were to say she was an influence, especially the ones who are in the hall who are still alive and kicking.

Linda is in a group of artists and bands people would like to see inducted into the hall but the hall is seemingly tone deaf to those requests. Some, like Linda, I agree, deserves to be inducted whereas others are questionable choices. Linda meets all of the criteria for nomination and induction, and before they induct any other questionable female performer, they need to induct her.

[Richard W]

"But, as far as acknowledgements go, one has to wonder if she has any male rockers out there who were influenced by her but have never acknowledged her publicly as having been an influence?"

Ben Harper has cited her as an influence.

[jhar26]

Mar 1, 2013 16:22:06 GMT -5 sliderocker said:

But, even of the ones who are, one has to question their credentials. Patti Smith was more of a favorite with the critics than with the public, all because she cowrote "Because the Night" with the critics's darling, Bruce Springsteen. One criteria the hall has is that the artist has to have influenced some other artist, but to be honest, I can't think of one other artist Patti Smith has influenced. What else did she do beyond "Because the Night?"

Well, one could argue that Patti Smith has influenced the whole New Wave movement. But influence is always hard to prove or disprove. I guess that every artist has had some influence on later artists who used to be members of his or her fanbase. But REAL influence as in having a direct impact on the history of popular music is extremely rare. You have Chuck Berry, Elvis, James Brown, Bob Dylan, the Beatles and perhaps a dozen or so others without whom we never would have heard the music of those who followed in their footsteps, but they are exceptions.

As for Patti Smith only being a critics favorite, well, she has an audience although it's not a mass audience. But no problem there as far as I'm concerned. Critic's darlings are sometimes better than the public's darlings. I would rather see Fairport Convention, Captain Beefheart and PJ Harvey in the HOF than The Osmonds, David Cassidy and Mariah Carey. Selling lots of records is no reason to be inducted into the HOF for me if it isn't backed up by the quality of the work. They already give gold and platinum discs for selling lots of records. As for Patti Smith, I think she deserves to be in there. She would have gotten the nod from me anyway.

[erik]

Quote by jhar26:

As for Patti Smith only being a critics favorite, well, she has an audience although it's not a mass audience. But no problem there as far as I'm concerned. Critic's darlings are sometimes better than the public's darlings. I would rather see Fairport Convention, Captain Beefheart and PJ Harvey in the HOF than The Osmonds, David Cassidy and Mariah Carey.

I think the big objection to Patti Smith, besides being a hanger-on with The Boss, is that she is an East Coast critics' favorite; and the East Coast critics had this nasty tendency to bash anything coming from the West Coast, and decrying L.A. as a place of hedonism and drugs (as if New York City itself never had any of those things). However, I wouldn't worry about the Osmonds or David Cassidy getting in ever. Mariah Carey--that's a lot stickier (I have the uneasy feeling they'd let her through the door on impulse at some point in the future).


Quote by sliderocker:

The critics can't make the argument that Linda is disqualified because she wasn't a writer and most of her hits were covers. Elvis wasn't a writer but he's in there. Rick Nelson wrote but the majority of his hits were written by others. Likewise, Aretha Franklin is a writer but a lot of her hits were written by others. In fact, with regrads to Aretha, I was listening to a repeat of Casey Kasem's America Top 40 show from 1971 a short time back and one of her hits was being played from that time. Kasem announced it was her 18th cover hit, so she covered a lot of other artist's tunes too.

This will probably make me sound like a bigot, but I think Aretha gets a pass because she happens to be black. Linda gets slammed a lot because she happens to be a white (albeit part-Mexican American) woman doing "black" R&B material, which I will always feel smacks of reverse racism.

[sliderocker]

Well, one could argue that Patti Smith has influenced the whole New Wave movement. But influence is always hard to prove or disprove. I guess that every artist has had some influence on later artists who used to be members of his or her fanbase. But REAL influence as in having a direct impact on the history of popular music is extremely rare. You have Chuck Berry, Elvis, James Brown, Bob Dylan, the Beatles and perhaps a dozen or so others without whom we never would have heard the music of those who followed in their footsteps, but they are exceptions.

I don't think it's quite so hard to prove an artist influenced other artists, not when you have those other artists saying in interviews the artist in question was an influence. The harder thing to prove, I guess, would be proving the artist had some kind of lasting influence outside of the sub-genre in which they debuted. I think that in order to have some kind of lasting influence, the artist does have to transcend the genre, but the list of those who transcend any genre can sometimes be a small one.

As for Patti Smith only being a critics favorite, well, she has an audience although it's not a mass audience. But no problem there as far as I'm concerned. Critic's darlings are sometimes better than the public's darlings. I would rather see Fairport Convention, Captain Beefheart and PJ Harvey in the HOF than The Osmonds, David Cassidy and Mariah Carey. Selling lots of records is no reason to be inducted into the HOF for me if it isn't backed up by the quality of the work. They already give gold and platinum discs for selling lots of records. As for Patti Smith, I think she deserves to be in there. She would have gotten the nod from me anyway.

Patti Smith has her audience, no question of that, but a critic would likely make an argument that she belongs in the R&RHoF because she made valid contributions to the genre, although to my way of thinking, proving someone made a valid contribution may be a lot harder to prove than proving influence. I don't really agree with the idea that critic's darlings are better than the public's darlings because in a sense, that's what all of the heated discussion about who is and who isn't inducted into the joke that is the R&RHoF. A good number of those who have been inducted are fan favorites but I don't think the critic's darlings should be given a one-up just because the critics happen to like them. I don't know if Fairport Convention, Captain Beefheart or PJ Harvey will ever make the R&RHoF but the Osmonds and David Cassidy don't have anything to worry about on that count. The only way they'll get in if they pay for a ticket. As for Mariah, well, there's Madonna, need I say more?

But, another issue never really discussed by many is the fact of how many people would visit the R&RHoF if the artists who are in there were only artists who never sold a lot of records but who the critics claimed had a lasting influence and made valid contributions?

The R&RHoF is a business, first and foremost, and if the critics overloaded the place with only acts they liked, it would be out of business. So, fame and success counts, even though they tell you it doesn't. And they should listen to what the public is saying as to who they want to see in there, because it's the public's money they're wanting. And when you tell them that over your dead body will their favorite ever be nominated and/or inducted, you are committing financial suicide because the public will respond back by bypassing your business.

[jhar26]

Mar 3, 2013 14:08:05 GMT -5 erik said:

This will probably make me sound like a bigot, but I think Aretha gets a pass because she happens to be black. Linda gets slammed a lot because she happens to be a white (albeit part-Mexican American) woman doing "black" R&B material, which I will always feel smacks of reverse racism.

I think Linda gets slammed mostly because she often made those r&b songs sound like Californian rock or pop. That's ok because that is of course what she was, but the critics basically accuse her of sucking the blackness out of black music. Dusty Springfield - a girl whiter than Linda - never got criticized for her Motown and other soul covers because 'she sounds black' on them.

What Aretha did from 1967 up to and including 1974 is so super-awesome that it hardly matter what she did before or since.

[sliderocker]

I think the big objection to Patti Smith, besides being a hanger-on with The Boss, is that she is an East Coast critics' favorite; and the East Coast critics had this nasty tendency to bash anything coming from the West Coast, and decrying L.A. as a place of hedonism and drugs (as if New York City itself never had any of those things). However, I wouldn't worry about the Osmonds or David Cassidy getting in ever. Mariah Carey--that's a lot stickier (I have the uneasy feeling they'd let her through the door on impulse at some point in the future).

Likewise, I think Patti's popularity is because she is considered east coast, and there has always been this view by the critics that everything that came out of the east coast was good and worthwhile, whereas acts that came from other parts of the country were questionable at best. One should remind the critics that Elvis came from Memphis, Buddy Holly from Lubbock, Texas, Roy Orbison from Wink, Texas and point out that some of the initial "rockers" from the east coast were teen idol artists like Fabian and Frankie Avalon, artists who some critics said watered down rock and roll in the late 50s and early 60s, making it less of a threat.

This will probably make me sound like a bigot, but I think Aretha gets a pass because she happens to be black. Linda gets slammed a lot because she happens to be a white (albeit part-Mexican American) woman doing "black" R&B material, which I will always feel smacks of reverse racism.

I feel the same way, not only about Aretha but many of the Motown artists who are in there. I've always thought the critics overfawned over any artist or record that came out of Motown, overstating their importance. To me, most Motown wasn't bad, but it was just good pop music that happened to be written mainly by blacks. Motown had some white songwriters on their staff like R. Dean Taylor, Lori Burton and Pam Sawyer, yet except for Burton, who released some albums in the 60s (not on Motown as far as I know), I think the critics in the 60s assumed all the songwriters were black.

I think critics slam Linda for being a white girl (being of part Mexican heritage) singing black/R&B songs, very much being reverse racial discrimination. There was no such charge when a female Motown artist recorded a song written by any of the white songwriters on their staff. And the discrimination was also sexual: not a word was said by (most) critics when Elvis recorded songs written by blacks or when Ray Charles recorded songs written by white songwriters, especially white country songwriters like Don Gibson ("I Can't Stop Loving You"), Buck Owens ("Together Again") and Eddy Arnold and Cindy Walker ("You Don't Know Me"). It was always okay, acceptable, but not if you were a white female. That actually smacks more of the kind of racism where certain people objected to whites dating or marrying blacks. Kind of wonder what those critics would've thought about a white act being on Motown (or associated labels) in the 60s?

It's not generally known but Motown did have some white artists in the 60s signed to their labels. Actress-country-pop singer-songwriter Conny Van Dyke (of Burt Reynolds's movie "W.W. and the Dixie Dance Kings" fame) was the first white female performer signed to Motown , although her stay there was a very short one. Just one or two 45s and that was it. Motown didn't really promote her or any of the whites they had, until Rare Earth and R. Dean Taylor came along later. I think with Taylor, they had to promote him since he had written some of their hits like "Love Child," but he and RE were the exceptions. They even had Meat Loaf (teamed with someone named Stony) but even on him, no effort was made to make him into a success.

[Dianna]

Any predictions as to whom will be nominated for 2013? I can bet on at least 1 who is eligiblle as of this year.

[jhar26]

Mar 3, 2013 15:12:48 GMT -5 sliderocker said:

Patti Smith has her audience, no question of that, but a critic would likely make an argument that she belongs in the R&RHoF because she made valid contributions to the genre, although to my way of thinking, proving someone made a valid contribution may be a lot harder to prove than proving influence. I don't really agree with the idea that critic's darlings are better than the public's darlings because in a sense, that's what all of the heated discussion about who is and who isn't inducted into the joke that is the R&RHoF. A good number of those who have been inducted are fan favorites but I don't think the critic's darlings should be given a one-up just because the critics happen to like them. I don't know if Fairport Convention, Captain Beefheart or PJ Harvey will ever make the R&RHoF but the Osmonds and David Cassidy don't have anything to worry about on that count. The only way they'll get in if they pay for a ticket. As for Mariah, well, there's Madonna, need I say more?

But, another issue never really discussed by many is the fact of how many people would visit the R&RHoF if the artists who are in there were only artists who never sold a lot of records but who the critics claimed had a lasting influence and made valid contributions?

The R&RHoF is a business, first and foremost, and if the critics overloaded the place with only acts they liked, it would be out of business. So, fame and success counts, even though they tell you it doesn't. And they should listen to what the public is saying as to who they want to see in there, because it's the public's money they're wanting. And when you tell them that over your dead body will their favorite ever be nominated and/or inducted, you are committing financial suicide because the public will respond back by bypassing your business.

Well, I think that a HOF that would be put together by 'the public' would be an even bigger joke (a MUCH bigger joke in fact) than the one we have now. Let's face it, 95% of the people out there are absolutely clueless when it comes to music. The public isn't made up of people like the ones on this forum for whom music is an important part of their lifes. It's made up of people who make the charts the mess that it is, call a song from six months ago an oldie and think that Mariah Carey is the greatest singer in history. They simply lack the knowledge and historical awareness to put something like that together. Critics may not be perfect (far from it), but at least they know who's who. At the mention of the name Linda Ronstadt half the public's response would be a simple, "duh?"

And for the record - I never said that it's a crime to have commercial success. Lots of commercially very successful acts are/should be in the HOF and they would get my vote. I'm only saying that commercial success alone isn't enough for me. I wouldn't vote for some very successful acts if they sold even ten times the number of records they already do. I would however vote for an act like, say, Little Feat because they were excellent and that should be acknowledged. If the public don't know them, well, they SHOULD know them and if they don't, tough luck.

Btw, I know that the Osmonds or David Cassidy will never get in. I only used some 'extreme examples' to get my point across more easily.

[philly]

Donna Summer indeed. And eventually Mariah Carey, and who knows who. It just gets more ridiculous every year, they always have to step over Linda when they want to find a woman to join their illustrious roster. I'm not saying Donna shouldn't have been put in, or Whitney, but Donna getting in was obviously a sentimental choice. Linda being kept out is one for Ripley's believe it or not!

[sliderocker]

Well, I think that a HOF that would be put together by 'the public' would be an even bigger joke (a MUCH bigger joke in fact) than the one we have now. Let's face it, 95% of the people out there are absolutely clueless when it comes to music.

I don't think a HOF put together by the public could be an even bigger joke than the one we have now. People are not as clueless as you may think; they just don't give a damn about some of the things the purists and critics seem to care about. I also don't think they would hold a set of double standards which would allow them to admit this singer or band while ignoring another band or singer. About the only thing I've seen people be clueless about when it comes to the music is the songwriting. And maybe who played on the recording. But, a good many of the people who don't want to see certain singers or bands inducted are the ones who think the hall's criteria specifies the artist must write and/or play on their recordings, when in fact the hall doesn't lists either as a qualification. It's thought though that the Jann Wenner/Dave Marsh/Rolling Stone crowd does adhere to the idea, and like using it as a reason to block certain artists and bands that meet the hall's eligibility requirements.

The public isn't made up of people like the ones on this forum for whom music is an important part of their lifes. It's made up of people who make the charts the mess that it is, call a song from six months ago an oldie and think that Mariah Carey is the greatest singer in history. They simply lack the knowledge and historical awareness to put something like that together.

Some might call those of us on this list fanatical or purists ot both. I'm not a purist although when it comes to my musical tastes, I only follow certain artists. It doesn't necessarily mean I dislike everyone else but there are some I don't listen to and won't listen to. But, I don't want to put the ones I don't listen to down because someone else does listen to them, and everyone's taste in music is so different enough that it's more likely agreements on music would be few and disagreements on music would be the norm.

Critics may not be perfect (far from it), but at least they know who's who. At the mention of the name Linda Ronstadt half the public's response would be a simple, "duh?"

To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, the only good critic is a dead critic! Critics are responsible for the purist crap, for the stupid idea that if you like what they like, you have good taste in music, and if you like someone they disapprove of, you have no taste in music. If a critics goes overboard in their praise of an artist or band (the Bruce Springsteen/Motown syndrome), that's usually enough of a recommendation for me to avoid the artist in question.

And critics can turn on act they once championed. I recall the critics were all crazy about Deborah Harry and Blondie before they became successful. But, once that group became successful, they could never do anything right to please the critics. The only thing that changed was that the public caught up with the group but once the public did catch up, that was the end of Blondie's stint as darlings of the critics. The critics's attitude towards them was "How dare they be successful and appeal to the public!" Critics have this really worthless idea that the only worthwhile music is made by someone who never became a success. And while it may be true that there were many great artists who got overlooked and who made great music, not everyone who wasn't a success made great music. I've heard some pretty lousy music by nobodies and it's easy to see why they never made it. The music stunk!

And for the record - I never said that it's a crime to have commercial success. Lots of commercially very successful acts are/should be in the HOF and they would get my vote. I'm only saying that commercial success alone isn't enough for me. I wouldn't vote for some very successful acts if they sold even ten times the number of records they already do. I would however vote for an act like, say, Little Feat because they were excellent and that should be acknowledged. If the public don't know them, well, they SHOULD know them and if they don't, tough luck.

No, it shouldn't be a crime to have commercial success but here again, a lot of the purists and some of the fanatical and critics think it should be or think the hall has a rule prohibiting artists and bands who had commercial success from being nominated/inducted. But again, the hall is a business being run for profit. They javascript:add("%20")may not own up to it but they want artists who were successful. They don't want a lot of artists who released a handful of recordings and who sold next to nothing. They want the bucks and the only way to do that is to make sure the heavyweights get inducted. Of course, they can always induct the unsuccessful act under the guise of having been an influential act

Btw, I know that the Osmonds or David Cassidy will never get in. I only used some 'extreme examples' to get my point across more easily.

I know, but I think there should be a hall of fame for them somewhere...or maybe hall of infamy would be more like it.

[jhar26]

Well, any sort of HOF would be regarded as a joke by a large group of people no matter who's in there and who isn't. If it was left to the public it would be seen as a joke by those who share my opinion. If it's left to the critics it would be seen as a joke by those who share your opinion. And if we meet somewhere in the middle everyone would still object because this or that artist who happens to be a personal fave is ignored. It's a bit like with all those "best albums" , "best singers", "best movies", "greatest composers", "best actors/actresses", etc lists. I've never seen one where even a minority is of the opinion that they got it right. Not that they necessarily got it wrong, but it's art and thus any opinion is subjective (but we can try).

[erik]

Quote by jhar26:

Well, any sort of HOF would be regarded as a joke by a large group of people no matter who's in there and who isn't. If it was left to the public it would be seen as a joke by those who share my opinion. If it's left to the critics it would be seen as a joke by those who share your opinion. And if we meet somewhere in the middle everyone would still object because this or that artist who happens to be a personal fave is ignored. It's a bit like with all those "best albums" , "best singers", "best movies", "greatest composers", "best actors/actresses", etc lists. I've never seen one where even a minority is of the opinion that they got it right. Not that they necessarily got it wrong, but it's art and thus any opinion is subjective (but we can try).

Perhaps it shouldn't be left to the public, then. But by that same token, don't the so-called "historians" at the RRHoF have an obligation to history to look at the facts of an artist and/or group in an objective way? So many of the potential inductees, let alone the actual ones that get in, seem to have been picked out of thin air, especially over the last several years, making the whole process look like a joke at the very least, and rigged at worst.

Linda just seems to be getting shunted aside year after year on the basis of a lot of flimsy and trumped-up explanations: too many non-rock excursions; doesn't write her own songs; allegedly "mangles" the songs she covers (especially R&B covers); she's a West Coast artist; her roots are in country-and-western, as opposed to rhythm-and-blues. Sorry, but those are cockamamie excuses, they are totally illegitimate. End of argument.

[jhar26]

Mar 4, 2013 10:31:30 GMT -5 erik said:

Quote by jhar26:

Well, any sort of HOF would be regarded as a joke by a large group of people no matter who's in there and who isn't. If it was left to the public it would be seen as a joke by those who share my opinion. If it's left to the critics it would be seen as a joke by those who share your opinion. And if we meet somewhere in the middle everyone would still object because this or that artist who happens to be a personal fave is ignored. It's a bit like with all those "best albums" , "best singers", "best movies", "greatest composers", "best actors/actresses", etc lists. I've never seen one where even a minority is of the opinion that they got it right. Not that they necessarily got it wrong, but it's art and thus any opinion is subjective (but we can try).

Perhaps it shouldn't be left to the public, then. But by that same token, don't the so-called "historians" at the RRHoF have an obligation to history to look at the facts of an artist and/or group in an objective way? So many of the potential inductees, let alone the actual ones that get in, seem to have been picked out of thin air, especially over the last several years, making the whole process look like a joke at the very least, and rigged at worst.

Linda just seems to be getting shunted aside year after year on the basis of a lot of flimsy and trumped-up explanations: too many non-rock excursions; doesn't write her own songs; allegedly "mangles" the songs she covers (especially R&B covers); she's a West Coast artist; her roots are in country-and-western, as opposed to rhythm-and-blues. Sorry, but those are cockamamie excuses, they are totally illegitimate. End of argument.

Up until fairly recently they did ok I think. There were some great artists they for god only knows what reason ignored, but at least those that got in were almost always deserving. But in recent years there were some strange choices (even more when you consider who's not yet in there) and that devalues the whole thing in my opinion. When you overlook someone deserving you can always correct that in years to come. But you can't give someone who shouldn't be in there the boot at a later date - once the're in the're in forever.

A formula that might work is: Each year the critics and historians select ten names. The public votes for the one they want in the most and the top four vote getters will be inducted. Of the remaining six the critics and historians get to select a fifth inductee. That formula should in theory at least keep popular lighweights out while the public still has a say in the process. And with the critics choosing a fifth inductee less well known but deserving acts would also have a shot at getting in.

[sliderocker]

Perhaps it shouldn't be left to the public, then. But by that same token, don't the so-called "historians" at the RRHoF have an obligation to history to look at the facts of an artist and/or group in an objective way? So many of the potential inductees, let alone the actual ones that get in, seem to have been picked out of thin air, especially over the last several years, making the whole process look like a joke at the very least, and rigged at worst.

One would think the historians at the R&RHoF have an obligation to look at the history of an artist or group in an objective way, without any kind of prejudices. Just because some of the people there didn't like some of the artists and bands isn't a valid reason for exclusion. They claim there is no prejudice against any artist or band yet that is not true, not when it's well known that among some committee members - especially the Jann Wenner/Rolling Stone crowd - there not only is a prejudice but an intentional blocking by that crowd to certain acts. They have set themselves up as the arbiters of who gets in, who doesn't and it's based on their personal tastes in music and not on the criteria that they themselves came up with. That, in and of itself, makes it a rigged affair. But, one reason I think they seem to be picking names out of thin air is that rule that says 25 years has to have passed since their first record came out. It's a pretty tough task to accomplish when the number of influential acts becomes less and less with each passing year. And it shouldn't be because of the number of inflential that are still on the outside.

Linda just seems to be getting shunted aside year after year on the basis of a lot of flimsy and trumped-up explanations: too many non-rock excursions; doesn't write her own songs; allegedly "mangles" the songs she covers (especially R&B covers); she's a West Coast artist; her roots are in country-and-western, as opposed to rhythm-and-blues. Sorry, but those are cockamamie excuses, they are totally illegitimate. End of argument.

Not only are they cockamamie reasons but they're also reasons that have nothing to do with their own stated criteria. The R&RHoF doesn't list any reasons for objections or why an artist or band may be excluded. And the thing here is, if they do, and they do, they have an obligation to be honest about it by basing such objections on their stated criteria and not their personal prejudices. Linda (along with many others) meets their criteria for nomination and induction, and those with personal prejudices against her (or any other act) should recuse themselves from the nomination process. They can vote their personal prejudices against her but no one with a prejudice against any act should be allowed to be part of the nomination process.

[sliderocker]

Up until fairly recently they did ok I think. There were some great artists they for god only knows what reason ignored, but at least those that got in were almost always deserving. But in recent years there were some strange choices (even more when you consider who's not yet in there) and that devalues the whole thing in my opinion. When you overlook someone deserving you can always correct that in years to come. But you can't give someone who shouldn't be in there the boot at a later date - once the're in the're in forever.

Fairly good points although when it comes to who shouldn't be in there, that's always a subjective and prejudicial issue. Just because you or I may (or anyone else) not like a certain artist or band shouldn't be a qualifier as to their getting inducted into the hall. And personal tastes and prejudices aren't supposed to be qualifiers with the ones who actually make the actual nominations and who vote on those who are nominated. But, given the fact that certain acts that have been eligibl to be nominated and have never been considered, one has to conclude personal tastes and prejudices do play a role in who gets a nod. I'd rather have a hall that plays by their rules for nomination and induction than a hall whose members vote their personal tastes and prejudices. That would mean they couldn't discriminate against any act they didn't like for whatever reason if they meet their criteria. They could vote using their own personal tastes but couldn't use it to keep acts from being nominated.

A formula that might work is: Each year the critics and historians select ten names. The public votes for the one they want in the most and the top four vote getters will be inducted. Of the remaining six the critics and historians get to select a fifth inductee. That formula should in theory at least keep popular lighweights out while the public still has a say in the process. And with the critics choosing a fifth inductee less well known but deserving acts would also have a shot at getting in.

Don't they have something like that now, where the public gets to nominate an act and take part in the voting process? Although in true hypocritical fashion, I think the public vote only counts as a third of a full vote, which would allow the hall committee members who vote to override the public vote of an act they didn't like.

Personally, I think a better option would be the hall has to nominate a certain number of acts from each decade that rock and roll has existed, say 15 acts each from the 50s and 60s, 10 acts from the 70s and 5 from the 80s (up through 1988, which would be 25 years ago). The top ten vote getters from the 50s and 60s era, the top five from the 70s and top three from the 80s would be inducted. The reason for so many from the 50s and 60s is obvious: that generation of artists are closest to being residents of the hereafter, and I'd rather see them honored while they're living than when they've passed.

I've also thought it kind of redundant that every year they seem to nominate an artist or band they nominated three of four times in the past, but who came up short in the nominations or the votes. That alone tells you that certain artists are popular with the hall members. But, it's an unfair situation because it means a favorite may get another nod, another shot at being inducted, while another act, no less worthy, may miss out because the nominating members are keen on the act they like getting in. Such had to be the case with Donna Summer, who was nominated several times before finally being voted in. Given her induction came after she had passed away, one has to wonder if the hall voted her in only out of guilt than actual merit? As some have suggested, maybe what needs to be done is an act that keeps being nominated but not getting voted in, needs to automatically go in, rather than having to get nominated year in, year out. It's obvious there is support for the artist, so why not have an automatically inducted rule that puts them in and frees the nominating committee to look at other worthy acts?

[LindaFan]

With Heart (Ann & Nancy Wilson) & Donna Summer being inducted just a week ago, maybe they are starting to open up about Linda but then Madonna was inducted a few years back. The place is strange, they allow acts like Run DMC, ABBA, Red Hot Chilli Peppers but not Linda? I really do believe that it's personal.

[Richard W]

Besides the snub by the RRHoF, a (perhaps) even more egregious omission was Rolling Stone's leaving Linda off their list of the 100 greatest singers of the rock era. THAT was obviously a middle-finger from Wenner.

I mean, Karen Carpenter made the list -- and nothing against that creamy voice -- but get real. You can't compile a list of the 100 greatest singers of the rock era and and include Carpenter but not include Linda Ronstadt -- the female voice of rock and roll -- unless your intent is to flip her off.

[Deleted]

Bob Dylan #7?!.. (or thereabouts).. I am a huge admirer of Mr. D as a songwriter and artist, but cmon?!

[musicaamator]

I have always wondered that if Linda did get into the RRHOF, who would would give her induction speech? I would think Henley/Frey would be a great choice considering their history, but knowing how recent inductees have been given speeches by current/younger generation musicians, I shudder to think that perhaps Taylor Swift would give it .

[Dianna]

For younger I would think sheryl crow would be the one, if ever that day came.

[sliderocker]

Sheryl Crow would be a good choice, as would Neil Young, imo, should that day ever happen.

[erik]

Quote by sliderocker:

Sheryl Crow would be a good choice, as would Neil Young, imo, should that day ever happen.

I think Neil Young's already there for his solo work (and as parts of a couple of groups). As for Sheryl, I think her first year of eligiblity is not too far down the pike.